lord_of_the_munch wrote of world infant mortality rates:
<<Wow! A whole 0.3% difference from top to bottom. Whoa, 2 and one
half babies more out of one thousand will die if born in the US than
if born in Finland. All things considered, I'd rather take my chances
to be born in the good old US of A.>>
LOL! Whoa, what a huge disparity, munch! Just what "all things
considered" are you referencing now?
A few days ago you quoted 4 "statistics" that were actually an uncited
editorial snippet from an absolutist (US of A) laissez-faire
capitalism site. In truth, the site's "stats" included progress in
developed nations in an attempt to skew the "benefits" unregulated
international "trade" has supposedly bestowed on the Third World. When
I pointed out the fallacious & opinionated nature of those informal
"stats" (twice), you failed to provide any support whatsoever for
their basis in factual reality, only repeating, "facts are facts"..
Ken has provided hard & cited facts on infant mortality, which
included NO undeveloped countries. Why are you prompted to minimize
the fact that America, boasting the best medical facilities,
personnel, & research in the world, has an abysmally low 28th placing?
Nationalistic bigotry involved? Why provide "top to bottom"
apologetics? If you need more pertinent contrast: in 1800, American
infant mortality was 55 per 1000; as of 2003, Sierra Leone's rate was
166 per 1000. Besides, why should libertarians care about a
precipitous rise in C-sections or somebody else burying a dead kid,
when they'd have to pay a statistical amount of tax to educate the
brat anyway? ~jill